The Portland daily press., 1887-02-16
A Number of Prominent Men Sum-
moned by the tuberculosis
Committee.
Especial to the Press.l

Committee.
Especial to the Pressl
AUGUSTA, Feb. 10.
The ten-hour bill was the great measure
before the House of Representatives thi.
forenoon. AT an early hour the galleries
and floors of the House were filled with
spectators. Shortly before II o'clock the 10
hour bill reported by the majority of the
labor committee, (Mr. Looney's bilD came up
for consideration. Mr.. Burns of Poland
Immediately moved that the report of the
minority of the labor committee, (the Heath
bilD be substituted for the majority report.
This motion was the pending question dur
ing the next hour of debate. This debate
was carried On with vigor until o'clock. 1t
was resumed again at 4.30 p. m, and when
an adjournment was caused at 6.20 p. m, the
fight was still at its height, with no prospect
of closing. A singular phenomenon was to
be observed in the course of this debate.
The question was which of the two bills, the
Heath or the Looney bill and every speaker
who had any objection to ten-hour law, all
the saw mill men, who say that the clause of
the Looney bill prescribing ten-hours only
for minors under eighteen would be bad for
their business as it would shut the boys out
of their mills, men like Walton of Skowhe-
gan, who two years ago voted square against
a ten-hour law. rallied in favor of the Heath
bill-an extreme measure that would include
men as well as women, that would not only
shut the boys out of the saw mills, but the
men as well, if those mills must be run more
than ten hours. Few argued directly for the
Heath bill, but all the disagreeing element of
the House, and there were many that APP
peared ini this afternoons debate, congre-
gated around it, On the other side gathered
the men who have one idea-a practicable
ten-hour law.
Mr. Looney, as chairman of the labor COM
mittee, on the part of the House, was the
first speaker. He opposed Mr.. Burns mo-
tion and advocated the bill reported by the
majority of the committee. Nearly every
member. was in his seat, and the interest of
both legislators and spectators was great as
Mr.. Looney began his speech. The speaker
first, briefly and clearly, explained the diff
ferences between the two bills. The Heath
bill not only prohibited the employment of
women and children more than ten hours,
but men as well. In no State in the Union,
in no foreign country have they yentured to
pass law limiting the hours for which men
may contract; Maine should hardly try such
an experiment by passing the Heath bill.
The bill recommended by the majority of the
committee, on the other hand, was such a
bill as had been approved by experience in
Massachusetts and other States Mr.. Loo
ney laid down two main propositions which
he would sustain; First. that the majority
bill was in the business interest of
the State; and second, in the moral and
material interest of the laborlng classes.
In proof of the first proposition,
Mr.. Looney said that the great economic
question OF the present time was how to pre-
10 of 4bo+
duced in too great quantities from putting
the wages of the laborers and the profits Of
the capitalists at too low figures. The solu-
tion OF this problem was ten-hour law. The
latest statistics show that there are ten mil
lions of persons employed in the manufac-
turing and mechanical establishments of the
country. They are laboring. eleven, twelve
and thirteen hours day. What would be
the effect of reduction of the hours of la
Dor two hours day? The effect is obvious.
1t would be equivalent to reducing the pro-
duct one-fifth, which is the same as raising
the demand for that product one-ffth. 1t
would create employment for two million
more men, or give work to all the idle men
in the country. Wages would then be de-
creased by decreasing competition. From
an economic standpoint, therefore, ten
hour law is demanded. In regard to the
moral and material interests of the laboring
classes, Mr.. L0oney devoted considerable
time. The ten-hour bill was met with the
objection that a reduction of the hours of la
Dor would result in reduction of wages
But the history OF labor legislation in
England and Massachusetts, said Mr..
Looney, demonstrates beyond doubt a re-
ductiOn of the hours of labor increases rather
than decreases wages. Statistics show that
outside of Massachusetts, in all New Eng
land and New York the laborers in factories
and mechanical establishment work sixty
five and one-half hours week for the aver
age wages each Of S7.S7, while in Massachu-
setts they work sixty hours week for $S,32
each. The wage-earners in 10-hour Massa-
chusetts work two days less month, and
yet get $2.52 month more. Here in Maine
the other New England States or in New
York. This" said Mr.. Looney, sis dis
grace to our State and to our law makers.
Then there are other reasons. The common
school system, which is the glory of New
England, has practically ceased to confer its
ufacturing cities. So the majority bill pro-
vides that children under y years shall not
work in mills at all, and that from IL to 10
they shall attend school four months
every year. Mr.. Looney quoted words
when the latter said that the manufacturers
in this country are not protected by tariff
in order that they may work their laborers
more hours than laborers are worked in the
countries against which we are protected.
"Our present system" concluded Mr.,
Looney, lis impolitic, immoral and inexhaus-
tive, system upon which no State can
stand, to which no morality can be recon-
ciled, and against which Christianity with
all her charities utters her indignant pro
test. The industrial masses expect you to
pass this bill, and thus emancipate them
from system which is impolitic, immoral
and unchristian." Mr. Looney's speech was
clear and concise, 1t held the attention of his
audience, and at its close was greeted with
hearty applause. 1t was a strong opening
such as was shown to have been needed, as
later in the day the assaults upon the meas
ure grew thicker.
Mr. ManleY of Augusta, followed Mr.
Looney with carefully prepared argument
in favor of the Looney bill. The Republican
party had put into its platform sentiments
favoring labor legislation, it was its duty to
pass practical bill that would fulfil those
promises. Mr.. Manley gave review of the
labor legislation which has brought such
magnificent results in modern years in Eng
land. The labor laws of other states in the
United States were cited in illustration OF
what has been done for the laboring people
In other states. 1t was a wise policy he con-
tended, Tor any state to so legislate as to ele-
vate its laborers. On them, more than on
natural advantages, depend, and Mr.. Manley
made forcible plea in their behalf.
MIR. Condon, Of Friendship, followed Mr..
Manley. The Democratic party. as we'll as
the Republican, was the friend of the laborer
and had so declared itself. Mr.. Condor
fryored the majority report, and made briei
but earnest speech in its favor. But he
wanted an amendment made so that the age
under which no child may labor shall be il
instead of II years, and another changing
Sec. of the Looney bill SO that notice Of in,
tention to leave may not be required. Mr.
Condor thought the Looney bill the only
practicable measure that would stand the
test of the courts.
Dir. Scott of Clifton, was the first man tC
come out flat-footed for the minority report.
Mr.. Scott has so far sat in his seat, one OF
the quietest members of the House, but to.
day he made a short and very original speech
that pleased the House greatly. He was a
laboring man himself and wanted ten hour
law; he was also lawyer and could not SEE
why it was unconstitutional to make Law
that a man should not work over ten hours
but perfectly constitutional to make one
that n woman should not.